From Monarchy to the Republic: European Union Democracy

Promotion in Nepal Robot Limbu

Dissertation submitted as a partial requirement for the conferral of the degree of

Master in international Studies

Supervisor:

Doctor Luís Nuno Rodrigues, Full Professor

ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa

Co-Supervisor:

Doctor Diogo Bernardo de Penha Lemos, Guest Assistant

ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa

October, 2020

i

Resumo

O estudo avaliou o papel desempenhado pela União Europeia na facilitação da rápida transição

do Nepal de uma monarquia para uma república democrática onde o povo exercia o controle

sobre a liderança e governança do país por meio de seus representantes eleitos. O Nepal vinha

tentando mudar do poder absoluto centralizado de um reino para o poder distributivo

descentralizado do povo por meio de uma democracia por algum tempo, mas falhou na maioria

das tentativas, pois a liderança do reino não permitiria a integração de ideologias democráticas

na governança do país. O estudo utilizou análises secundárias qualitativas, com um enfoque

particular em estudos de caso, para identificar e estabelecer a importância do envolvimento da

UE na facilitação da democratização do Nepal.

Os resultados obtidos neste estudo indicaram que a União Europeia esteve ativamente

envolvida no processo de democratização do Nepal, através do qual prestou assistência

humanitária e financeira, além de interferir como membro da comunidade internacional na

denúncia das injustiças do governo, especialmente as injustiças de direitos humanos. Os

resultados estabeleceram que a UE começou formalmente a apoiar o processo de

democratização do país no ano de 2006, durante o II Movimento Popular, que resultou em uma

mudança de regime bem-sucedida no Nepal, e uma transição no estilo de governança, com

preferência por uma democracia sobre uma monarquia, pois esta era a melhor solução política

para proteger os direitos humanos no Nepal, ao mesmo tempo em que promove o crescimento

e o desenvolvimento econômico.

Palavras-chave: União Europeia (UE), Democratização, Democratização, Monarquia,

República

ii

Abstract

The study evaluated the role played by the European Union in facilitating the swift

transition of Nepal from a monarchy to a democratic republic where the people exercised

control over the leadership and governance of the country through their elected representatives.

Nepal had been trying to shift from centralized absolute power of a kingdom to the

decentralized distributive power of the people through a democracy for quite some time, but

failed in most attempts, as the leadership of the kingdom would not allow for the integration of

democratic ideologies in the governance of the country. The study used qualitative secondary

reviews, with a particular focus on case studies, to identify and establish the significance of the

EU’s involvement in facilitating the democratization of Nepal.

The results obtained from this study indicated that the European Union was actively

involved in the process of democratization of Nepal, whereby it provided humanitarian

assistance, and financial aid, in addition to interfering as a member of the international

community in calling out the injustices of the government, especially human rights injustices.

The results established that the EU formally began supporting the democratization process in

the country in the year 2006, during the II People’s Movement, which resulted in a successful

regime change in Nepal, and a transition in the style of governance, with preference for a

democracy over a monarchy, as this was the best political solution of protecting human rights

in Nepal, while promoting economic growth and development.

Keywords: European Union (EU), Democracy, Democratization, Monarchy, Republic

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………….... ii

Table of contents………………………………………………………………………………iii

Glossary of Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………...v

Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background of the Research Study ................................................................................. 5

1.2. Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 6

1.3. Research Aim, Objectives, and Questions....................................................................... 6

1.3.1. Research Aim ............................................................................................................ 6

1.3.2. Research Objectives .................................................................................................. 7

1.3.3. Research Questions ................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Rationale of the Study ..................................................................................................... 7

1.5. Proposed Methodological Approach ............................................................................... 7

1.6. Outline of the Study ......................................................................................................... 8

Chapter Two: Literature Review............................................................................................ 9

2.1. Forms of Governance ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2. Democracy in Nepal ...................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1. Overview of the Democracy Journey in Nepal ....................................................... 10

2.2.2. Hereditary Kingship in Nepal and its Abolishment ................................................ 11

2.2.3. Why the Maoist Insurgence Started ........................................................................ 13

2.2.4. The 12 Points Peace Agreement ............................................................................. 14

2.2.5. Role of Parties in Democratization of Nepal .......................................................... 14

2.2.6. Transition to Democracy in Nepal .......................................................................... 14

2.3. The European Union’s Support for Nepal’s Democracy............................................... 16

2.3.1. Economic Help........................................................................................................ 17

2.3.2. Diplomatic Pressure ................................................................................................ 18

2.3.3. Solidarity on Ethnic and Regional Re-structure of Nepal ...................................... 18

2.3.4. Solidarity on Revolutionary Party .......................................................................... 18

2.4. Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) ...................................................................... 19

2.5. Conceptual Framework.................................................................................................. 19

2.6. Research Gap ................................................................................................................. 20

Chapter Three: Research Methodology ............................................................................... 21

iv

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 21

3.2. Research Philosophy...................................................................................................... 21

3.3. Research Design ............................................................................................................ 21

3.4. Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 22

3.5. Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 22

3.6. Search Strategy .............................................................................................................. 23

3.6. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 24

3.7. Reliability and Validity of the Research Study ............................................................. 25

3.8. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 25

3.9. Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 25

Chapter Four: Results and Discussions ............................................................................... 26

4.1. Thematic Analysis of Results ........................................................................................ 26

4.1.1. Theme 1: Nepal’s Process of Democratization ....................................................... 26

4.1.2. Theme 2: EU’s Involvement in Nepal’s Process of Democratization .................... 28

4.1.3. Theme 3: International interests in Nepal’s Process of Democratization ............... 32

4.1.4. Theme 4: Benefits and challenges of democracy in Nepal to locals and the

international community ................................................................................................... 35

4.2. Discussions .................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................ 39

5.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 39

5.2. Key Findings based on Research Objectives ................................................................. 42

5.2.1. Research Objective 1 .............................................................................................. 42

5.2.2. Research Objective 2 .............................................................................................. 42

5.2.3. Research Objective 3 .............................................................................................. 42

5.2.4. Research Objective 4 .............................................................................................. 43

5.3. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 43

5.4. Future Studies ................................................................................................................ 43

References ............................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix 1: Literature Review Matrix ................................................................................ 49

v

Glossary of Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

CA Constitutional Assembly

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

CPN-M Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

CPNUML Communist Party of Nepal unified Marxist Leninist

CSP Country strategy paper

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

EC European Commission

ECC European Economic Community

EGT Evolutionary Governance Theory EGT

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EU European Union

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

IMF International Monetary fund

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NCP Nepali Congress party

UNDP United Nation Development Programme

UNESCO United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nation Children Fund

US United States

USD United States Dollar

UK United Kingdom

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

WB world Bank

vi

1

Chapter One: Introduction

Nepal is surrounded on the east, west and south by India and in the north by the China.

With India, Nepal shares an open border roughly about 1850 km which enables uninterrupted

cultural and trade connections between neighbor country. As far as China is concerned, the

Himalayas stand as a natural boundary for Nepal in the north sharing border with 1414 km.

Being a landlocked and under-developed country Nepal is located on the Himalayan mountain

ranges. Nepal have three main physical belts which spreads east to west tarai1 flat low fertile

land, mid mountain region between the Mahabharat Range and the Great Himalaya Range,

rising to more than some 8,850 meters high mountain. Laying between two giants neighbor

country, India and China with new economic rivalry, Nepal foreign policy had been to keep

balance and between the two countries. Nepal’s socio-economic development has been

profoundly relying on external help. Regional and extra-regional countries like the United

States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Norway, Japan, and South Korea, institutions

and agencies like ADB, IMF, UNICEF, UNDP, WFP, WHO, USAID, DANIDA UNESCO,

EC, have provided substantial economic assistance. To do so some of these countries do have

strategic and political interests. Neighboring countries like India and China have also provided

economic and security assistance to Nepal they have considerable degree of influence in

Nepalese power politics.

Modern Nepal was created by the conquests and military campaigns of Prithvi Narayan

Shah, King of Gorkha, one of small principalities of Western Nepal, between 1744 and 1790.

By the end of 1769, the whole Kathmandu Valley was conquered by Gorkhalis, and in the

following years, the Western Khasa kingdoms and the Eastern tribes were subdued (Whelpton

2005:35, Malagodi, M. 2011).The Gorkhali expansion continued until 1814; by this time, its

sovereignty was extended from the Kangra Valley in the West to Sikkim in the East. Then the

Anglo-Nepalese War broke out, Gorkha was defeated by the British East India Company, and

the Treaty of Sagauli in 1816 fixed the borders of the kingdom (approximately the same as the

modern borders) and deprived it of the newly conquered territories (Whelpton 2005:42,

Malagodi, M.2011)..Thus Prithvi Narayan Shah is considered as father of nation .Before

Prithivi Narayan Shah unified Nepal there was not state of Nepal but many small Tribal states

1 A lowland region in southern nepal

2

called “Baise” “Chaubisi”2.After the death of Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1775, Nepal faced a

period of overall political instability, which abruptly came to an end with Jang Bahadur

Kunwar’s coup in 1846. Jang Bahadur assumed the title of ‘Rana’, neutralized the power of the

Shah king and the aristocratic elites, and progressively assumed absolute powers by making the

office of Prime Minister hereditary within his family. However, he chose to retain the monarchy

– although divested of effective power – as the living symbol of the unity of the kingdom vis-

à-vis the internal diversity of its subjects. This was an arrangement that lasted for over a century

(Whelpton 1991:244, Malagodi, M. 2011).

The “Jahaniya” Rana regime was individualistic, unjust and only for a handful of

people. The king was under house arrest without the executive power only for decorative

position.People wanted a change in daily life, After the 1950 War national Independence of

India, many third countries ware experiencing a wave of democracy. After the return of the

British empire from India, the relations of the Rana with the British empire were also severed.

The relationship between the king and the Gandhi family was strong. Newly Founded Nepali

Congress party1948, with the support of India and King Tribhuvan, intensified its anti-rana

movement. Another newly formed Communist Party of Nepal also supported the movement,

resulting in the fall of the Rana regime in 1951. King Tribhuvan promulgated the first

constitution. The overthrow of the Ranas in 1951 – through an alliance between the political

parties formed in India and King Tribhuvan Shah – was followed by a decade of parliamentary

democracy and the promulgation of the 1951 Interim Constitution and the 1959 Constitution of

Nepal (Whelpton 2005:72, 87–99, Malagodi, M. 2011). However, by the end of 1960, King

Mahendra dismissed the government, claiming that Nepal was still not ready for democracy,

and in 1962 promulgated the Panchayat Constitution, which banned political parties and created

a neo-traditional political system that revolved around the Shah king (Burghart 1993:1). The

monarchy began to play a more assertive role in Nepali politics, which lasted for thirty years.

The economic crisis of 1989, ignited by the Indian trade embargo and refusal to renew its

economic agreements with Nepal, significantly contributed to undermining the legitimacy of

the Panchayat regime (Whelpton 2005:113, Malagodi, M. 2011). Shortly afterwards, the

2 Baise Rajya, literally. 22 principalities) was a former group of 22 kingdoms of khas people The Baise

were sovereign, but intermittently allied among themselves until they were annexed during the

unification of modern Nepal from 1744 to 1810.

Chaubisi Rajya literally 24 principalities") were sovereign and intermittently allied petty kingdoms on

the Indian subcontinent, ruled by Khas Rajputs from medieval India, located around the Gandaki River

Basin, a major Himalayan tributary of the Ganges

3

movement started by the so-called banned political parties succeeded in overthrowing the

Panchayat regime and paved the way for a new political institutional agreement: the creation

of a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional form of monarchy. The 1990 victory

decided only a small part of the political question, but the very ground that produced it (the

socio-economic) was substantially unaddressed.3 Indeed, as Whelpton points out (p. 189), the

Congress government went ahead with IMF type reforms against the very state institutions that

created its own base. In 1991, Whelpton shows us (p. 127), between 7 and 9 million (out of 19

million) Nepalis could not cover their minimum daily caloric requirement. The austerity

established by the Congress, and the lack of attention to this cataclysm by the main political

parties opened the door not only to the Maoist insurgency, but also to the lack of faith in the

system itself (apathy, individualism and nihilistic upward mobility are its cultural outcomes).

The shenanigans of the Royal Palace are important, but not significant. Gyanendra, in line with

Shamsher’s warning, tried to put history in reverse; his attempt was doomed to failure.4

Since 1951, Nepalese people has continuously fought for democracy. As an achievement of the

armed movement against the Rana dynasty between 1946-1950, the Nepalese people got to

experience limited democracy for the first time. But in 1960, King Mahendra again reduced the

rights of the people, implemented non-party panchayats system and took over the executive

power. This was a great blow to the Nepali people's faith in democracy and betrayal for people

rights. Dahal notes “During this system, all the political parties were banned, and the

fundamental rights of the people were also seized. This tyranny from the monarchy neither

could institutionalize democracy, nor could it bring any significant development in the nation.

Human rights and political rights of the people were highly suppressed. Political parties had

continuously been struggling for the restoration of democracy”.5

After the death of King Mahendra in 1972, King Birendra let opened activities of

political parties to address the movement for democracy in 1990. In 1991, King Birendra

promulgated a constitution with a constitutional monarchy. The year after that Nepali Congress

won a majority in the first democratic election. In 1996, the Maoists launched an armed struggle

3 Vijay Prashad Book Reviews Studies in Nepali History and Society 11(2), 2006

4 Ibid

5 Dahal girdhari 2017 Democratic Practice and Good Governance In Nepal Journal of Political

Science 17:18

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326227680_Democratic_Practice_and_Good_Governance_I

n_Nepal

4

to abolished monarchy. Due to the culture of non -cooperation in the midst of Nepal's first

decade of democracy and the ever-changing government, there has been little emphasis on the

institutional development of democracy. During the tenure of the constitutional monarchy,

Nepal was situated in the list of underdeveloped nations at 113 out of 130 countries in the

Human Development Index. At various times after the dissolution of the House of

Representatives in 1994, a hung parliament produced 8 unstable coalition governments within

5 years.6 On February 13, 1966, a people's war was declared under the leadership of Pushpa

Kamal Dahal, demanding a federal republic of Nepal. After that, Nepal was plunged into a 10-

year people's war. There were many doubts in the report of the impartial investigation of the

royal palace murder case. The people indirectly viewed King Gyanendra as the mastermind of

the assassination. Public discontent escalated, and the Maoists intensified their attacks when

the new king took executive power and began direct rule. King Gyanendra, several constitution

articles were suspended, especially ones relating to freedom of speech, expression, press,

movement and rights to peaceful protest. then prime minister Deuba’s government stayed in

office and ruled through government decrees until dismissed by Gyanendra due to a perceived

inability to hold elections and quell the Maoist insurgency.7

The non-party panchayat rule continued for 30 years. Again in 1990 the first mass

movement launched jointly by the liberal Nepali Congress Party (NC) and several splinter

communist groups restored democracy a political system based on constitutional monarchy and

parliamentary democracy. After 6 years later in1996 Maoist lunch armed struggle and 14,000

Nepalese died during the Maoist insurgency between 1996–2005, and the numbers of victims

of armed conflicts are in the several hundred thousand. “Second democracy experiment was

derailed by the royal takeover of October 2002 by King Gyanendra who was succeeded the

throne after the murder of King Birendra in June 2001 assumed executive power in October

2002 and seized all powers in a coup on 1 February 2005.April 2006 Democracy was restored

by people’s movement with huge successful mass uprising in April 2006, known as Jana

Andolan II then monarchy was abolished, changing Nepal into a republic state. Nepal also

converted from a Hindu kingdom into a secular state and established a federal form of

government. The Maoist party (CPN-M) abandoned its decade-long armed insurgency and

6 Neplese Democracy Movement (2017) in Wikipedia. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_democracy_movement#cite_note-RAND-13

7 Ibid

5

agreed to a peaceful multiparty competitive system.8 With the political instability there was

frequent change of government during 1990 to 2005 creating chaos, anarchy and disorder in

Nepal. Years between 1990-2000, three succeeding parliamentary elections held in 1991, 1994

and 1999 Majority rule governed and two local elections in 1992 and 1997.In 1991 the kingdom

established a multiparty parliamentary system. In 2008, however, after a decadelong period of

violence and turbulent negotiation with a strong Maoist insurgency, the monarchy was

dissolved, and Nepal was declared a democratic republic.

1.1. Background of the Research Study

The study reviews how the European Union was involved in facilitating the

democratization of Nepal, a small landlocked Asian nation located in the Himalayas, between

Southern Tibet, India, and China. The country has a strong geopolitical interest, given its

strategic location along the Chinese – Indian international border, it attracts massive interest

from international stakeholders in its internal matters. Diamond (2011) noted that both China

and India have vested interests in the internal affairs of the country, which to come extent has

had a significant impact on the political and leadership affairs of the country. The scholar noted

that China and India, as rising regional and global powers, were always interested in obtaining

spheres of influence in countries found within their borders, a strategy used by Russia to control

the geopolitical factors within its neighborhoods, which made Nepal their first candidate.

Similarly, Bhargava (2009) added that other countries from far, including the US, and the UK,

have had a hand in the administration style and policies used in the country.

The study evaluates the EU’s role in facilitating the democratization of Nepal, given

that the EU is also far off, and the fact that many other foreign countries have been trying to

influence and control the political landscape of the country over the years. Furthermore, the

study’s relevance stems from the fact that Nepal had been trying unsuccessfully on a number

of occasions to change its political leadership from a Kingdom to a democracy. The interests

of the study are focused in a period of 15 years beginning 2000 to 2015, examining the events,

processes, and programs that enabled the country to become a republic, in addition to reviewing

the role of the EU in each of these steps (Gunatilleke, 2009). This is significant considering the

fact that the country had been a kingdom for over two centuries, whereby the abolishment of

8 https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/chapters/the-role-of-the-european-union-in-

democracy-building/eu-democracy-building-discussion-paper-37.pdf

6

the monarchy on May 28, 2008 marked the end of an era for a kingdom that had lasted for over

240 years. The abolishment of the kingdom paved way for the establishment of democratic

republic, headed by the Prime Minister who is also the leader of government, and assisted by

other key political leaders.

The study also evaluates the performance of Nepal after it became a republic, having

changed from a kingdom, in terms of economic performance, natural resources, labor and trade

routes, and social circles, among many others, to establish if there was any way for the EU to

benefit from its democratization, by comparing and contrasting what it can access from Nepal

now that it is a democracy, to what it was not capable of accessing from Nepal when it was a

kingdom. This approach will be instrumental in identifying the vested interests that the EU,

among other international stakeholders, had in Nepal that informed its active role in pushing

for the democratization of the Asian nation.

1.2. Problem Statement

The problem addressed in this study pertains to the involvement of the EU in facilitating

the shift from a monarchy to a parliamentary democracy in Nepal. Nepal is a poor nation,

landlocked between India and China, and with political system that is fragile and unstable,

recovering from the devastating effects of poor governance attributed to the abolished

monarchy. The study examines the international community’s role in building the right

capacities and institutions in the country that would facilitate establishment of a functional

democratic government in the country. Gordon (2005) argued that without the involvement of

the international community, especially the European Union, democracy in Nepal would have

been derailed for much longer and would have caused more bloodshed than it is currently

reported. As such, the study examines the role played by the European Union, to determine

whether its involvement had a positive impact or a negative impact in the process of

democratization of Nepal, judging from its financial assistance, humanitarian aid, human rights

advocacy, political support, and economic cooperation.

1.3. Research Aim, Objectives, and Questions

1.3.1. Research Aim

7

The purpose of the research study is to evaluate the role played by the European Union (EU) in

facilitating the shift from a monarchy state of government to a democratic republic.

1.3.2. Research Objectives

To evaluate the role played by the EU in the democratization of Nepal

To examine the challenges faced by Nepal in its road to democratization

To determine the benefits of democratization to the Republic of Nepal

To establish the hidden interests behind the EU’s support for democratization of Nepal

1.3.3. Research Questions

Is there any specific EU role in the Democratization of Nepal?

What is the EU Democracy promotion agenda in Nepal?

Is democracy promotion by the EU in Nepal through Via Aid?

Is there any specific domestic and international interest for promote democracy by EU in

Nepal?

1.4. Rationale of the Study

The research study is important because its findings will outline the support provided

by the European Union to help the Republic of Nepal change from a kingdom to a democratic

republic, as the process of democratization was not easy at all for the Nepalese people. These

findings will be instrumental in building strategic bilateral alliance between the Nepalese

democratic republic and the European Union, both for the present and the future generations,

given its involvement in their democratization process. Since the country is still new to the

provisions of democracy, it requires guidance and direction from an established international

community member, and as such, knowing who played a major role in supporting the

democratization process is critical in determining the most appropriate international partner for

Nepal.

1.5. Proposed Methodological Approach

8

A qualitative research method approach will be used to complete the study, whereby the study

uses the explanatory research design to evaluate and analyze relevant secondary sources to build

an understanding pertaining to the historical development of democracy in Nepal. In this regard,

the findings of the study will be in a position to highlight the strategic role of the EU in

facilitating the achievement of democracy in the country.

1.6. Outline of the Study

The study has five main divisions, namely chapters one to five, whereby each chapter builds

into the other, to provide a complete and comprehensive study pertaining to the significance of

the EU in the peace process and democracy in Nepal. The study opens with an introduction

chapter, which states the purpose and objectives of the study. The second chapter reviewed

various literature materials pertaining to the democratization of the Republic of Nepal. The

research methods chapter outlined the processes and procedures followed in the study in

conducting the research study. The results and discussions chapter presented the findings of the

study, which helped in building deductive arguments on the democratization of Nepal. The fifth

chapter closed the research study, drawing conclusions on the role played by the EU in the

democratization of Nepal, and making final remarks and recommendations on possible future

studies to pursue based on the findings reached in the study.

9

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1. Forms of Governance

Przeworski (2017) argued that there were only two distinct forms of political

governance that a country could adopt, one that the citizens participated in the management of

the affairs of the country, and one that the citizens were spectators in the management of the

affairs of the country. The scholar noted that the main defining line for these two forms of

governance lied in the way the leaders came into officer. Teorell and Staffan (2019) supported

the above claims, noting that governments which allowed their citizens to participate in the

management of its affairs were referred to as democratically constituted governments, as the

people determined who became their leaders through periodic nationwide votes held after a

certain set period. There are many definitions of democracy among us According to Frances

Fukuyama’s (1992) democracy appeared to represent the endpoint in human history. Amaryta

Sen (1999) argued that democracy is a universal human value, not limited to the affluent

advanced industrial societies. Agreeing with the idea of Amaryta Sen, democracy should in fact

address basic issues such as the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment, or

the practice of this principle and respect for the individual within a community.

Figure 2.1 (Source: The Economic intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2020)

In fact, the democratic form of governance is the most practiced style of governance in

the world today, having been embraced by most countries as the preferred means of integrating

10

the people’s will in the governance affairs of their country. On the other hand, Hyder and Syed

(2019) noted that there were also non-democratic forms of governance, whereby the people had

not authority in selecting their political leaders. On the contrary, the leaders were imposed on

them by a system or the leaders themselves, such as the case of a monarchy, a dictatorship, or

oligarchy. Depending on the caliber of the leader, the people had to suffer or enjoy the

challenges or fruits of leadership for as long as the leader was in power, usually for life.

2.2. Democracy in Nepal

2.2.1. Overview of the Democracy Journey in Nepal

As noted above, the journey towards democracy has been a long and gruesome one for

the people of Nepal, given that the leadership of the monarchy was neither ready nor willing to

share power with the people, or hand over power to the people. According to Dahal (2017), the

monarch never supported the idea of transforming Nepal into a democratic republic, evidenced

by the King’s decision to suspend parliamentary democracy in the country on two occasions,

the first time being in 1951. The first time it was abolished was in 1960 while the second time

it was abolished was in 2005. However, Chaturvedy (2017) argued that the civil wars reported

in the country in the early 1990s and the early 2000s were strategic in facilitating the journey

towards democracy in the country, established officially in 2008, following the abolishment of

the over two centuries old Hindu monarchy.

Mottin (2017) stated that there were two major democracy movements that shaped the

process of democratization in the country, among them the 1996 Maoist movement, and the

2006 democracy movements. The 2006 Democracy Movement was the most significant in the

history of democracy in the country, given that it is the one that successfully pushed for

democracy in the country, realized 2 years later in 2008. Dahal (2017) agreed with the above

claims, stating that the 2006 Democracy Movement involved political agitations by the public

against the direct and undemocratic rule of King Gyanendra of Nepal. It was named the second

‘People’s Movement’ Jan Andolan II, which implied that it was the second phase of the first

people’s movement held in 1990, Jan Andolan I. Hutt and Pratyoush Raj Onta (2017) noted

that the 2ndPeople’s Movement in Nepal was successful in achieving its desired objectives of

installing a democratic republic in the country, evident by ousting of the sitting king and the

outdated monarchy that had oppressed the people of Nepal for long.

11

2.2.2. Hereditary Kingship in Nepal and its Abolishment

Bhatta (2019) noted that in the mid-19th century, the position of Prime Minister was created for

the very first time in Nepal, whereby Jung Bahadur Rana occupied this office as the supreme

leader of the country. Jung wield absolute power in the country that he relegated the Shah King

to mere figureheads. Malla (49) supported the above claims, stating that Prime Minister Jung

stated a hereditary reign in the country, whereby power was handed down from father to son,

in the infamous Rana Prime Ministers that ruled the country for 104 years. However, Breen

(2018) argued that the reign of the Ranas in Nepal was brought to an abrupt end in the 1950s

when a democracy movement held in 1951 overthrew the then Prime Minister from office. The

democracy movement was successful because of the support provided by the then monarch of

Nepal, King Tribhuyan. Once the Ranas were overthrown from the leadership of the country as

de facto Prime Ministers, the Shah King Tribhuyan was reinstated as the supreme leader of the

country, wielding absolute powers of governance as the Head of State and Government.

Initially, the Shah King had been relegated to a mere figure head during the Ranas’ reign as

Prime Ministers.

According to Bhusal (2016), the heir to the king is the one who permitted the planning

and undertaking of the first democratic elections in Nepal. This was King Mahendra, son of the

former King Tribhuyan, who succeeded his father. King Mahendra introduced democracy in

the country by issuing a new constitutional dispensation to be applied across the country, which

created room for the 1959 democratic elections. During the elections, the people were allowed

to elect their political representatives, including members of the National Assembly. After the

elections, the first Prime Minister of the country to be elected democratically was Bishweshwar

Prasad Koirala, as his party, the Nepal Congress Party won the elections, and he was given the

PM post by virtue of his position in the party as the party leader. However, Prasai (2018) noted

that the democracy in the country was not to last for long, as a few months later in 1960, King

Mahendra decided against democracy in the country, which moved him to dissolve the first

ever democratically elected National Assembly, subsequently dismissing the first democratic

government established in Nepal. The king went ahead to ban all political parties and political

movements in the country, putting to an end every possible opportunity for Nepal to become a

democracy. Gurung (2018) added that for the next 30 years that followed, not democratic

movements or political parties were allowed in the country until 1990.

Khadka et al (2017) stated that after three decades, the Nepalese people finally gained

significant courage to confront the leadership of the land and demand for reinstatement of

12

democracy in the country, evidenced through the first People’s Movement held in the 1990s.

This was a strategic move in the country, given the numerous years in which the country had

struggled to achieve democracy, after King Mahendra banned the organization of any political

parties within the country. Jan Andolan I was particularly effective in reviving the long process

of democratization in Nepal, given that the then King Birendra was moved to accept

constitutional reforms in the country that paved way for the establishment of a democracy. In

addition to the constitutional reforms, the king also allowed for the establishment of a

multiparty parliament. Musacchio (2018) agreed with the above claims, stating that with the

establishment of the multiparty parliament, the king shared his power with the people, as

opposed to wielding absolute power, as had been the case earlier. In the new political

arrangement in the country, the King became the Head of State, while an executive Prime

Minister elected from the political parties, became the head of government. However, Chetri

(2018) added that this arrangement and sharing of power between the monarch and the elected

government did not please everyone in the country, especially the Maoist Parties. The Maoist

Movement launched an armed insurgency against the multilateral parliament established in

1991, rocking the democracy boat that had set sail in 1991 after the first parliamentary elections

had been held in Nepal, and national representatives elected to represent people’s will in

parliament.

Breen (2018) stated that changes towards full democracy began manifesting in the

2000s, albeit triggered by a streak of misfortunes. A strange tragedy occurred on the 1st of June

2001, which all members of the royal family of King and Queen Birendra and Aishwarya, along

with all their immediate family members and close relatives. The only survivor of the tragedy

was Gyanendra and his family, the brother to the deceased king, and for that reason, crowed

the king after the passing of his brother with no possible heir from his lineage to ascend to the

throne. Hatlebakk (2017) added that the fact that Gyanendra was the only royal that survived

the fateful tragedy that claimed the former king and his entire lineage was suspect, given that

he was the biggest beneficiary of the vacant throne left by his brother. Furthermore, since

kingship in Nepal was hereditary, it was possible that Gyanendra had a hand in the tragedy that

his brother and family suffered, so that he would get the opportunity to ascend to the throne.

Dahal (2017) added that the actions of the new king soon after ascending the throne hinted to

his involvement in the demise of the firmer king, given that he dismissed the elected parliament

and abolished democracy in the country, after abiding by the elected government for some time.

Snellinger (2017) established that the decision by King Gyanendra to abolish the

elective parliamentary system in Nepal derailed the process of democratization in Nepal,

13

pushing its nationalist patriots to revive their struggle and movements for democracy. In fact,

soon after, the second People’s Movement was launched in the country to help in the fight for

democracy. This was in the year 2006, where several democratic parties joined hands in

organizing and coordinating the activities of the people’s movements. The then monarchy

retaliated by declaring a 19-days curfew in the country to control aimless movement of people

across the entire country. However, this second movement by the people of Nepal was

successful in restoring democracy in the country, just as the first movement had been successful

in bringing an integrated multiparty party parliament in Nepal.

Regmi (2017) stated that after some time, King Gyanendra had to hand over the absolute

powers he had over Nepal as the Supreme Leader and agreed to reinstate the National

Assembly. Dahal (2017) added that reinstatement of parliament in Nepal, and the introduction

of full democracy in Nepal brought about peace in the country. Key among these was the

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2006 signed between the newly elected Prime

Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala and Prachnda, the Maoist Chairman on November 21, 2006,

which signified their commitment to maintaining peace and democracy in the country for

progress and prosperity of the people and the country.

2.2.3. Why the Maoist Insurgence Started

The Maoist Insurgency or the Maoist Revolution was responsible for the Nepalese Civil

War or Maoist Conflict, a civil war in Nepal between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

(CPN-M) and the Government of Nepal (Upreti, 2009). The war lasted for ten years from

February 13, 1996 to November 21, 2006, in what is referred to as the ‘Maovadi dwandakaal’

insurgency era. The primary purpose of the Maoist rebellion was to overthrow the Nepalese

monarchy and, in its place, establish a people’s republic that promoted democracy in the

country. As mentioned above, the insurgency ended after the CPN-M leader signed a

Comprehensive Peace Accord with the democratic government of Nepal, established after the

successful ousting of the monarchy government (Ullah Khan, 2012). The insurgency was

responsible for executions, massacres, purges, kidnappings, war crimes, and crimes against

humanity, and responsible for the deaths of over 17,000 people including insurgents, civilians,

police personnel, army troops, and internal displacement of hundreds of thousands of people,

mostly in rural Nepal.

14

2.2.4. The 12 Points Peace Agreement

The Government of Nepal through the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction oversees

the enforcement and implementation of the 12 Points Peace Agreement signed on November

22, 2005. The peace agreement was signed between seven political parties and the Communist

Part of Nepal (Maoist) (Regmi, 2017). This agreement was necessitated by the long struggle

between the absolute dictatorial monarchy and democracy movements in the country. As such,

the agreement was to pave way for peace and push for democracy establishment in the country,

in addition to enabling effective management and resolution of most problems facing the

people, among them class, cast, gender, and region in all sectors economic, political, social and

cultural. Prasai (2018) noted that the 12 points agreed in this peace concession included,

establishment of democracy, peace, prosperity, social advancement and an independent and

sovereign Nepal; establishment of an Interim Democratic government that observed peace and

prosperity in the country; CPN-M committing to maintaining peace in the country; and

assessing and critically analyzing past mistakes to learn and improve for the future.

2.2.5. Role of Parties in Democratization of Nepal

Political parties played a major role in the democratization of Nepal, evidenced from

the first years of the democracy journey in the 1950s, until the 2nd successful People’s

Movement of 2006 that facilitated the establishment of the democratic government (Wintrobe,

2018). The political parties were responsible for pushing the monarchy government to

relinquish absolute power and instead share it with the people through democratically elected

leaders.

2.2.6. Transition to Democracy in Nepal

Chaturvedy (2018) stated that the country held an election to elect the Constituent

Assembly on the 10th of April 2008, which facilitated the full transition of Nepal from a Hindu

monarch into a democratic republic, through a declaration. The Constituent Assembly made it

very clear in the declaration that Nepal had now become a Federal Democratic Republic,

formed in place of the 240-years old monarchy that had been recently abolished. Rolfes and

Kathrin (2019) agreed with the above claims, stating that the new democracy introduced in the

country in 2008 was a full democracy, unlike the previous one formed in 1990 that was a partial

15

democracy, as power was shared between the monarch and the democratic government. In this

new arrangement, Dahal (2017) noted that the democratic dispensation of Nepal was structured

such that power was divided between the President and the Prime Minister, as the ‘Head of

State’ and ‘Head of Government’ respectively, and an elected Constituent Assembly to check

on the powers of each office.

Dahal (2017) established that the Constituent Assembly also made great democratic

strides in the country by facilitating the creation of a new inclusive constitution to replace the

old constitution that had been used in the country before. The promulgation of a new

constitution in the country was instrumental in capacity building and institution building of the

new democratic state established in Nepal after hundreds of years being governed as a

monarchy. Furthermore, the new constitution strengthened the institutions of democracy in the

country even more, by creating time limits for those who held various elective leadership

positions in the country. Key among these was the stipulation of a 4 years term for every elective

post in the country, including that of the President and the Prime Minister. Chaturvedy (2017)

agreed with the above claims, stating that further constitutional dispensation in the country

provided for the strengthening of state institutions and functionalities in such a way that there

would be a balance of power in the country, with no single office or individual wielding

absolute power to control over the country. Mottin (2017) noted that the checks and balances

introduced in the country through the new constitution included the creation of three arms or

branches of government, with each branch operating independently from the other, but designed

to provide service and support to the public. These arms of government included the Executive,

headed by the President and Prime Minister, the Legislature, represented by the Constituent

Assembly, and the Judiciary.

Dahal (2017) stated that the role of the executive was to come up with effective policies

and structures that help the country to move forwards. However, the bills and policies proposed

by the executive had to be approved by the Constituent Assembly as the organization of

people’s representatives, who debated and either passed or rejected the bill with or without

amendments, based on their perceptions about fairness, equity and suitability of the bills in

addressing the issues facing common people in the country. Hutt and Pratyoush Raj Onta (2017)

agreed with the above claims, stating that the primary role of the legislature in the country was

making laws, which entailed coming up with different statutes and bills aimed at addressing

several issues affecting the people of Nepal, and getting approval of these bills from the

Executive. On the other hand, Bhatta (2019) added that the role of the judiciary was to enforce

the law, based on the rules and regulations passed in the country, as well as the constitutional

16

dispensation in the country. Its other role was to interpret the constitution based on the legal

statutes in the land, thereby ensuring that every action taken by the Nepalese government was

constitutional all the way, including appointment and dismissal of state officials, establishment

of state positions and functions, and enactment of bills and policies in the country.

Malla (2019) added that the supremacy of the constitution in Nepal was drawn from the

fact that it was written democratically, as opposed to the previous constitutions where the

leaders, in this case the Kings, were the ones who wrote the constitution, usually in a manner

that favored them, or enhanced their rule of the country. In this particular case, the constitution

was made through participative efforts of all members of country who had attained

constitutional age of adulthood. Breen (2018) agreed with the above claims, stating that during

the period of drafting the constitution, the country was involved in an extensive democratic

exercise, involving collection of public views and inputs in the contents of the new constitution,

which were later presented to the Constituent Assembly for intense deliberations, approving

clauses that were good for the country, and rejecting those that were bad for the country.

However, Bhusal (2016) argued that this process was not very successful because of the

political disagreements witnessed in the country, especially on some contentious issues, such

as the form of government and the number and borders of federal provinces.

Gurung (2018) noted that the first democratically elected Constituent Assembly in the

country was not able to accomplish successfully the historic task of promulgating the new

constitution, which resulted in the natural termination of its mandate by the year 2012. This

paved way for a new set of democratic elections to vote in the second Constitutional Assembly,

in November 2013. A year later in 2014, leaders of different political parties operating in the

county held a meeting and established a scheduled timeline of one year for completing the task

of writing the new constitution. Prasai (2018) supported the above claims, stating that the

second CA was successful in fulfilling its mandate of writing the new constitution, as by 2014,

the constitution was ready to be presented to the people for voting. In the year 2015, Nepal

promulgated its first new participative and consultative constitution, which is still applicable to

date. As such, this new constitutional dispensation was the most effective way of ensuring the

permanence of democracy in Nepal, given that it prohibited any other forms of governance

from being enforced in the country, except for a democratic republic.

2.3. The European Union’s Support for Nepal’s Democracy

17

Gellner and Hachhethu (2008) stated that the European Union was among members of

the international community that were actively involved in the process of democracy in Nepal.

Nepal and the European economic Community (ECC) began an official bilateral relationship

in the year 1975, cooperating in areas of education, humanitarian aid, and economics. Khatri

(2009) supported the above claims, stating that the EU’s concerns with the process of

democracy in Nepal were raised by the rampant cases of human rights injustices, evidenced by

the persecution, oppression, and execution of thousands of innocent Nepalese citizens that were

championing for democracy. Kugiel (2012) added that majority of these deaths were reported

during the Maoist insurgency of 1996 to 2005, which claimed the lives of over 14,000. As such,

Chand (2019) noted that the EU was concerned with these developments in Nepal, given that

part of its international policy was to promote protect and preserve human rights injustices,

more especially in cases where the injustices had a political gearing.

2.3.1. Economic Help

Borzel and Risse (2004) noted that the European Economic Community (ECC) has been

of immense economic help to the people of Nepal, which began officially in the 1970s when it

established diplomatic ties with the country. From the beginning, the European Economic

Community (ECC) supported economic activities in line with education, health and

humanitarian assistance, given that the poor governance practices in the country exposed it to

poor development, and an even poorer population. In this regard, Bhatta (2019) added that the

economic assistance of the EU to the people of Nepal was meant to enhance the economic

stability and empowerment of its poor population, protect the public from human rights

injustices perpetrated by the government, especially those involved in pushing for democracy

in the country. Looking back at the last twenty years of aid assistance in Nepal by the EU

Commission, after the post-monarchy in “democratic republic of Nepal" it has been increasing

aid assistance in observation of the new political situation. According to the Government of

Nepal Minister of Finance in the period of 2014-2020, the new EU Nepal Cooperation program,

the so-called Multi-Annual Indicative Program (MIP) was adopted in the autumn of 2014. It is

aligned to the National Development Strategies of Nepal and the funds will triple to € 360

million to boost rural development and job creation, foster quality education and strengthen

democratic governance. as compared to 2007- 2013.9

9 https://mof.gov.np/en/division/detail/news-957/?lang=1&j=36

18

2.3.2. Diplomatic Pressure

Calingaert, Puddington and Repucci (2014) noted that in response to the humanitarian

crisis witnessed in Nepal following the prevalence of civil wars and internal conflicts in the

country, the European began applying diplomatic pressure on the government of Nepal,

demanding that it upholds and protects human rights, with a bid to bring down the prevalence

of human rights injustices in the country. In the same regard, Ullah Khan (2012) added that part

of the motive of the diplomatic pressure placed by the EU on Nepal’s government was to

facilitate introduction of democratic practices in the country, given the fact that the monarchy

was unable to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of the people. This is evident from

the death of over 14,000 people in Nepal from the continuous wars reported since 1990 to date.

2.3.3. Solidarity on Ethnic and Regional Re-structure of Nepal

Nayak (2008) established that the EU was also instrumental in facilitating the

democratic process of Nepal by exercising its solidarity on ethnic and regional restructure of

Nepal, which was later realized after the democratization of the country, evidenced by the

establishment of the Constituent Assembly, whose members were appointed from different

regions of the country. The support for regional re-structure of Nepal was based on the fact that

there was no equitable representation of all regions in the country in government, which also

informs the EU’s push for democracy in the country. Borzel and Risse (2004) noted that with

democracy, it would be possible to re-structure the country’s leadership and governance

structure, thereby ensuring equitable representation of all ethnic groups and regions in

government, for appropriate allocation and distribution of resources.

2.3.4. Solidarity on Revolutionary Party

Nayak (2008) noted that the EU also advanced its support for peace and democracy in

Nepal by exercising solidarity with the revolutionary party, evidenced by its support for the

Second Mass Movement in Nepal. This is because the EU realized that the monarchy

government of Nepal was not willing to relinquish power to the people, and neither was it

willing to allow constitutional reforms to integrate democratic principles in the governance and

19

leadership of the country. Furthermore, the EU also noted that the undemocratic governance of

the king is what had pushed the country to anarchy, causing more deaths of innocent Nepalese

citizens, in addition to promoting human rights injustices. Similarly, Upreti (2009) noted that

the EU took an open stand against the monarchy government in the year 2006, by calling out

the kingdom for oppressing the people, and promoting human rights injustices across the

country. As a result, it supported the Second People’s Movement in its push for establishing a

democratic republic in Nepal, in place of the hereditary monarchy.

2.4. Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT)

Solanki and Ratad (2019) noted that the theory of evolutionary government best

explained the concept of the research study, given its focus in understanding the strategic role

that the EU played in the democracy process of Nepal. The theoretical framework is effective

in this research study because it analyzes and explains the process of governance and its

evolution over the years. Sonja and Lou Mathis (2019) supported the above claims, stating that

the EGT framework addressed the complex and non-liner nature of governance by recognizing

that governance and the elements of governance changed constantly in interplay with each

other, placing emphasis on the co-evolution characterized by institutions, actors, and

discourses. Teorelland Lindberg (2019) noted that in the perspective of Nepal, the framework

would enable the research study to evaluate and understand the process of democratization in

Nepal, bringing into perspective the key stakeholders that were involved in facilitating the

achievement of democracy in Nepal, including the Peoples’ Movement, the Maoist Revolution,

and the European Union. Wintrobe (2018) added that that the EGT was also effective in

promoting in-depth understanding into the processes and mechanisms that drove social

evolution in Nepal, such as the reason for seeking democracy in Nepal, and the implications of

the change in style of governance from a monarchy to a democratic republic.

2.5. Conceptual Framework

The research evaluated the role played by the European Union in facilitating the

achievement of democracy in Nepal. The literature review has highlighted various incidences

regarding the involvement its involvement in Nepal’s peace process, which is helpful in

building the research study’s findings and conclusions. The study examines qualitatively how

the European Union was involved in the journey towards achievement of democracy in Nepal,

20

to determine whether its involvement was helpful in fast tracking the achievement of

democracy, or an obstacle to the country’s desire to shift from being a kingdom to a democratic

republic. In this regard, the variables evaluated in the study include the process of

democratization in Nepal as the dependent variable, and involvement of the European Union

as the independent variable, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Since it is already clear that the

EU was actively involved in the process of democratization in Nepal, and that Nepal has

successfully undergone the change from a kingdom to a democratic country, the study aims at

establishing whether its involvement had any substantive added value in fast-tracking the

democratization process, or presented an impediment; with an analysis of a hypothetical

scenario if the EU had not been involved in the democratization process altogether.

Figure 2.5: Illustration of the Conceptual Framework Diagram (Source: Author)

2.6. Research Gap

The gap addressed in the research study is about the EU’s role in the democratization

process of Nepal. It is already known that Nepal transitioned successfully from a monarchy to

a democracy in the year 2008, and that the European Union was actively involved in this

process. However, what is not clear is how the EU was involved, what role it played, and

whether or not its involvement supported or inhibited the process of democratization in the

country. As such, the research study covers this research gap using qualitative reviews of

secondary material to address the underlying questions.

Democratizatio

n

of

Nepal

EU’s Involvement

EU’s un-

involvement

Short and Successful

Process of

Democratization

(2000 – 2015)

Long and Complex

Process of democratization

21

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

3.1. Introduction

The third chapter outlines the methodological procedure and choices made by the

research study during the collection and analysis of relevant data required to complete the study.

The methodological choices made in the study include adoption of a qualitative research

paradigm, given the effectiveness of integrating an explanatory research in addressing the

research topic, which seeks to understand the significance of the European Union in Nepal’s

journey to independence. In this regard, the study builds from secondary data materials

providing comprehensive evaluation of the historical development of democracy in Nepal. Key

areas addressed in the chapter include research philosophy, design, approach, data collection

and analysis, search strategy, reliability and validity of study findings, ethical considerations,

and study limitations.

3.2. Research Philosophy

An interpretivist research philosophy was used to complete the research study, given

the concept of the research study, where the primary focus was to evaluate and understand the

role played by the EU in supporting the democratization of Nepal. Tracy (2019) stated that the

interpretivist research philosophy interpreted key elements of a research study to provide

conclusive deductive arguments on the research topic. In this case, the interpretivist research

study was instrumental in facilitating effective interpretation of the journey of democracy of

Nepal, taking into consideration the key players involved in making this journey a success, as

provided for under the Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT). Selection of the interpretivist

research philosophy was made against the only other possible alternative, the positivist research

philosophy, which took a more quantitative approach, applying the scientific research method,

in completing the research study (Howitt, 2016)

3.3. Research Design

An explanatory research design was used to complete the research study, given the

effectiveness of explaining the journey of democracy in Nepal. Hennink, Inge and Bailey

(2020) stated that an explanatory research is an effective research design for completing a

research study, whose research problem has not been comprehensively researched beforehand,

22

and as such, requires priorities to generate operational definitions and provide a better research

model of the study. In this case, the explanatory research design was most effective for

completing the research study because of its strategic focus on explaining key elements of the

study in a detailed manner. Selection of the explanatory research design was made against other

possible alternatives such as the explorative research design (explores missing gaps in a

research topic), the experimental research design (uses experiments to complete the study), and

the investigative research design (conducts thorough investigations into the research topic)

(Lune and Berg, 2016).

3.4. Research Approach

A qualitative research method approach was used to complete the research study, guided

by the interpretivist research philosophy and explanatory research design adopted for the study.

Brennen (2017) stated that a qualitative research approach was effective in facilitating

appropriate interpretation of key variables and elements involved in a research study, given that

it focused on collecting and analyzing ordinal data in addressing the research topic. The

qualitative research method approach was selected against the quantitative research method

approach, which focused on collecting and analyzing figurative data in addressing the research

topic (Howitt 2016). In this case, the deductive reasoning approach was used presenting the

arguments raised in the research study, providing specific and detailed true arguments on the

research topic, as opposed to the inductive reasoning approach, which focused more on building

arguments from generalizations.

3.5. Data Collection

The research used case studies for data collection, which were preferred because of the

explanatory research design adopted for the study and the use of quality secondary sources.

Howitt (2016) stated that case studies referred to a process or a record of research that led into

the development of a particular person, group, or situation over a period of time. In this

particular research study, the case study evaluated the process of democratization of Nepal,

from which an in-depth analysis of the involvement of the European Union was to be

undertaken to determine the role it played, and whether by playing this role, it was supportive

or unsupportive of the democratization process. In order to build comprehensive case studies

23

on the democratization process, the study required quality secondary sources, which were

obtained using the following search strategy.

3.6. Search Strategy

The study developed an effective search strategy to facilitate identification and selection

of credible and quality secondary sources. The search strategy useful in identifying quality

sources from relevant databases with information on the research topic. Some of the databases

used in the search strategy included International IDEA, the UNDP, and the European Union.

The study also used keywords in guiding the search for quality articles through these databases,

some of these being ‘Nepal’s democracy’, ‘Nepal’s government’, ‘Nepal’s history’, and

‘Nepal’s leadership’. To facilitate correct identification of quality sources, the study used an

eligibility criterion, which set the parameters for accepting and rejecting secondary sources

based on their relevance to the research topic. Table 1 below shows the eligibility criteria used.

Table 3.6: Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion criteria

Articles on the journey for democracy in Nepal Articles published before 2010

Articles published in the last 10 years (2010to

2020)

Articles on the economic performance of Nepal

Articles on the involvement of the international

community in Nepal’s democratization

Articles on the politics of Nepal before and after

the 21st century

Articles on the EU’s involvement in the

democratization of Nepal

Articles on foreign affairs and international

relations of Nepal.

(Source: Author)

A PRISMA flow chart was used to detail the process followed when identifying and

selecting articles for use in the study. The flow chart applied the eligibility criterion outlined

above, whereby 10 sources were identified and selected as quality sources. The flow chart opens

with the identification of 200 potential articles, which are reduced to 161 after 39 articles are

excluded for being published before 2010. The next elimination excludes 67 articles that

focused on the economic performance of Nepal, leaving 94 articles. A further 33 and then 51

articles were eliminated for addressing politics of Nepal before the 21st century, and foreign

affairs and international relations of Nepal, respectively, leading to the 10 remaining eligible

24

sources that were used to build the case studies, and analyzed along key themes that would

build an in-depth understanding into the role played by the EU in the democratization of Nepal.

Figure3.6: PRISMA Flow chart

3.6. Data Analysis

The study used the thematic analysis technique to analyze the data collected from

different quality secondary sources identified through the search strategy. As such, thematic

analysis entailed collecting and analyzing common themes, trends, repetitions, and

contributions from different scholars on the research topic, which was helpful in building the

findings and conclusions reached from the research study (Brennen, 2017). The thematic

analysis technique was also in line with the explanatory research design adopted in the study,

given that it provided a comprehensive framework for the study to conduct an in-depth analysis

Articles on the journey for democracy in Nepal

N = 200

Articles published in the last 10 years (2010 to 2020)

N = 161

Articles on the EU’s involvement in the

democratization of Nepal

N = 61

Articles Selected

N = 10

Exclude articles published before

2010

N = 39

Exclude articles on the economic

performance of Nepal

N = 67

Exclude articles on the politics of

Nepal before and after the 21st century

N = 33

Articles on the involvement of the international

community in Nepal’s democratization

N = 94

Exclude articles on foreign affairs and

international relations of Nepal

N = 51

25

of the key information detailing the historical development of democracy in Nepal. The key

themes evaluated in the research study included:

Nepal’s process of democratization

EU’s involvement in Nepal’s process of democratization

International interests in Nepal’s process of democratization

Benefits and challenges of democracy in Nepal to locals and the international community

3.7. Reliability and Validity of the Research Study

The study ensured the validity and reliability of the research findings by making sound

methodological choices. This is evident from the data collection and analysis tools used, the

search strategy, the research approach, design, and philosophy, whereby each methodological

choice not only enabled the study to identify the right data sources, but also promoted the

accuracy of the research findings by selecting the most relevant quality sources.

3.8. Ethical Considerations

The ethical considerations observed in this study pertain to the quality of sources used

in the study, given that it relied primarily on secondary data sources. In this regard, the study

ensured that only quality sources with relevant information to the research study were identified

and used to complete the study. This was ensured by the comprehensive eligibility criterion

used in identifying quality sources, the systematic review used to collect data from eligible

sources, and the thematic analyses used to analyze the data collected.

3.9. Limitations of the Study

The main limitation of the study was is overreliance on secondary data sources, as

opposed to primary data sources. However, the study overcame this challenge by ensuring that

only quality sources were used for the study, as these contained relevant information to build

on the research study.

26

Chapter Four: Results and Discussions

4.1. Thematic Analysis of Results

4.1.1. Theme 1: Nepal’s Process of Democratization

The study established that the journey towards democracy in Nepal was not new to the

Asian country tucked away in the Himalayas, but began more than seven decades ago in the

1940s and 1950s, when the people began expressing dissatisfaction with the hereditary

monarchy rule that placed absolute power in the King. Nightingale, et al (2019) noted that the

kingship in Nepal was hereditary, meaning that it was passed from father to son, in the same

royal family, over the years, thereby eliminating any possibility of the people contributing to

or suggesting how they wanted to be governed. Furthermore, the oppression by the monarchy

on its people, in addition to denying them equitable representation in matters of governance and

leadership of the country, caused unrest among the public, thereby championing for the people’s

movements that pushed for installation of democracy in Nepal and abolishment of the age old

monarchy.

The struggle for democracy in Nepal began in 1951, whereby the people engaged in an

armed revolution with the primary goal of overthrowing the kingdom from its express control

over the country and push for the adoption of an inclusive democratic government. Khaniya

and Sharma (2018) noted that the armed revolution organized by the Nepalese commoners

began in 1946 and ended in 1950 but was met by full counter offensive from the throne, which

send out soldiers to fight the armed revolutionists. However, persistence paid off for the

revolutionaries, as the king gave in to their demands, given that by the year 1951, Nepal tasted

its first ever democracy after the King issued a royal edit that allowed for the practice of partial

democracy in the country.

However, at the time when democracy was introduced in Nepal, the provisions of

democracy were limited, both in terms of expression and application. For instance, the public

did not have any influence in the choice of leaders, and neither did they have any influence on

the public policies made for their own good. The king had a hand in the selection of leaders

who would act as representatives of the people, without the people’s say. Lawoti (2019) stated

that the democracy introduced in the country at the time did not contain the benefits of

democracy as envisioned by majority of the Nepalese commoners, as most of the privileges and

activities that came with having a democratic government in place were limited. Furthermore,

27

the stint of democracy did not last for long, as a coup held in 1960 brought about a change in

leadership in the royal family. The new leadership did not allow any form of democracy in the

country, even the limited type. In fact, all political activities were banned in the country,

including political parties and organizations.

King Mahendra is reported to have introduced the Panchyat system in Nepal that

enforced a party-less system of representatives in the King’s court, and an active monarchy.

Initially, during the partial democracy in the country, the king extended a hand to the public,

through its public leaders, to identify one amongst them that would represent the best interests

of the public in the King’s Court. However, with the new king’s directive, all activities of the

commoners in selecting their leaders were abolished. Paudel and Pahari (2020) noted that the

King handpicked the court representatives of each region, preferring and rewarding his

psychopaths and ardent supporters, as opposed to impartial leaders with the deep-seated desire

to serve their people. Furthermore, the active monarchy enforced by the King quashed all

possibilities of establishing or reintroducing a democracy in the country, given that the King

had absolute power and authority in the country, with the other arms of government being his

puppets, used to rubber stamp the king’s decree.

In the 30 years that followed after the 1960 coup, no major political activities were

witnessed in the country, because of the strict directives from the King to ban all political

parties, political associations, and political movements in the country. The people had to follow

and abide with the leadership of the monarchy, or face the consequences of disobedience,

whereby a significant number of political activists were imprisoned for life or beheaded for

committing treason in the country. Chacón and Paik (2017) added that the three decades’

oppression of the monarchy on its people inspired them to take a decisive step and revolt against

the leadership of the country, characterized by the major upheavals reported among the

Nepalese commoners in the 1990. In fact, the first people’s movement in the country was

undertaken in the 1990, characterized by mass movements of the commoners across major

streets of the country, particularly in the capital.

Political parties that had been operating in shadows during the period of strict ban on

political activities in the country organized and choreographed the mass movements of the

people. One of these parties included the Nepali Congress Party (NC), a liberal political party

that consolidated the support of other political parties and splinter groups to take on the

kingdom’s leadership directly, demanding for the establishment of a democracy political

system in the country. Jeffery (2017) stated that the first people’s movement in conducted in

Nepal during the 1990 was successful in reintroducing democracy in the country after 30 years.

28

The political party not only led the people in demanding for democracy in the country, but also

pushed for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Nepal, as replacement of the

hereditary monarchy, which was to share leadership of the country with parliamentary

democracy. In this regard, the Nepalese commoners would have an indirect influence in the

leadership and administration of the country through selection of their leaders and determining

who was to become king in the country whenever the throne became vacant.

The first People’s Movement was effective in reintroducing democracy in the country,

though partially, as King Birendra gave in to the people’s demands and accepted the

implementation of constitutional reforms that paved way for the creation of a multiparty

parliament, moving away from an active monarchy as had been the case before. The multiparty

parliament would support the monarchy in governing the country, while ensuring equitable

representation of the people in the affairs of governance in the country. Ghimire (2017) noted

that with the new arrangement, the King shared power with the people, as opposed to holding

absolute power in the country, as he became the Head of State, while an Executive Prime

Minister became the Head of Government. The PM was selected from the party leader of the

political party that garnered the most elective seats in the multiparty parliament. Even though

this was not a full democracy, at least it provided the Nepalese commoners with an opportunity

to control the affairs of governance in the country.

4.1.2. Theme 2: EU’s Involvement in Nepal’s Process of Democratization

The study established that the EU was a strategic player in promoting the successful

change in government style from a monarchy to a democracy. These findings were consistent

with Chacón and Paik (2017) who established that the EU has always had a keen eye on

promoting human rights watch across the world, and as such, its interests in Nepal were not

guided by the benefits it would draw, but rather by the desire to maintain human rights,

especially considering the fact that the totalitarian monarchy regime was oppressing and

persecuting political activists in the country leading in the journey towards democracy. Jeffery

(2017) noted that unlike other international organizations and members of the international

community present in Nepal who had hidden interests in the status of governance of the country,

the EU was mainly concerned with provision of humanitarian aid to vulnerable communities

across the globe since 1975, and had been at the fore front in supporting civil liberties and

democratic movements since 2001. As such, the humanitarian crisis in Nepal, characterized by

human rights injustices, persecution, and execution of innocent people during their civil strife,

29

moved the EU to engage the process of installing democracy in Nepal as a long-lasting political

solution to protecting human rights in the country. In this regard, it is evident that the decision

by the EU to support the people of Nepal towards realizing their democratization dream was

not guided by any hidden interests, but purely by the desire extends its humanitarian assistance

to the vulnerable communities and groups within the country.

According to Ghimire (2017), the EU marked Nepal as a vulnerable hotbed for

humanitarian crisis and injustice because of the totalitarian leadership style enforced by the

monarchy over the country, given that from 1960 to 1990, the kingdom did not allow any

political activities to be undertaken in the country. In addition, it is also noted that during this

period, all those political activists found engaging in politics or supporting political movements,

such as operating political parties, were captured and imprisoned or executed by the state on

treason charges. In the same regard, Acharya and Zafarullah (2018) also noted that the

monarchy with absolute powers was acting as a totalitarian regime, whereby all those with

dissenting opinions to what the leadership of the country wanted were either persecuted or

openly oppressed. In fact, this is one of the major reasons why the people of Nepal took to the

streets in mass movements to fight for democratization of their country in a bid to introduce

and exercise people’s power in the management of affairs and effective governance of the

country. As such, these concerns explain the active involvement of the EU Member States in

the humanitarian programs and conflict resolution activities within Nepal.

Karaman and Cernov (2017) noted that the first role played by the EU in promoting the

journey towards democracy in Nepal was by supporting the vulnerable groups, particularly the

public and the political activists, who were being persecuted and oppressed by the totalitarian

monarch regime, for their efforts to introduce and implement democracy in Nepal. The EU is

reported to have provided both humanitarian support and legal support to these groups, and in

the process, directly or indirectly supported the successful journey of democratization in Nepal.

Amardeep and Rupinder (2019) added that the EU’s stamp in the democratization of Nepal is

also seen in their support for victims of poor leadership in the country, given the fact that the

monarchy had resorted to using military counter offensive to attack and eliminating any

dissenters from the royal charge.

Lawoti (2019) noted that what attracted the EU to Nepal’s case was the Nepalese Civil

War, which was characterized by the desire of the public to install democracy in the country,

in place of the dictatorship leadership in the country enforced by the hereditary monarchy. The

Civil War was mainly sponsored by the Maoist insurgency, which sponsored militants to

engage the government forces in a bid to introduce democracy in the country. Nightingale et al

30

(2019) reported that the aftermath of the Civil War was marked by the death of over 17,000

people, including both innocent civilians and armed forces drawn from the militant groups and

the royal army. These people lost their lives during the civil strife witnessed in the country as

the battle towards democracy raged on. Furthermore, it is notable that over 4,000 Nepalese

citizens were also killed during the civil conflicts launched by the Maoist Movement from 1996

to 2005, in addition to another 8,200 Nepalese citizens killed by government forces during the

same period. From this perspective, it is evident that there was a high prevalence of civil strife

in the country, which explained the presence of the EU in Nepal, with its attempt to address

these challenges.

In this regard, it is notable that the EU decided to support Nepal to achieve its democracy

from the dictatorial monarchy in place because it was only through a democratically elected

and installed government, that the prevalence of civil strife and humanitarian crisis would die

down in the country. Paudel and Pahari (2020) noted that the EU was committed to contributing

toward conflict mitigation by providing support to the establishment of core legal institutions,

introducing programs designed to assist the civil war victims, and improve the capacities for

peace research. There were many victims of war in the country, nursing both physical and

emotional wounds, from sustaining physical damages and injuries to losing their loved ones to

war. Their prevalence in the country was attributable to different perceptions of preferred

models of governance shared by the public and the monarchy. In this regard, it is notable from

Nightingale et al. (2020) that the EU’s involvement in Nepal’s journey towards democracy was

part of the expanding ambition of the EU as a global actor in the field of international relations,

whereby it sought to stand out as a major player in promoting democracy around the world in

the 21st century. Notably, the role of the EU as a global actor was not limited to the political

and economic cooperation, but also extended towards the promotion of European values,

freedoms, social welfare, and most importantly democracy and human rights.

Jeffery (2017) noted that the EU was among the major international supporters of the

peace process in Nepal, whereby it addressed and mitigated the humanitarian crisis prevalent

in the country caused by the poor and unjust leadership over the years, until an effective change

of leadership was installed in the country. Paudel and Pahari (2020) noted that this was achieved

through the successful transitioning of the country’s form of governance from a kingdom to a

republic in 2008. This is among the major international achievements of the EU, with regard to

its international policy of promoting democracy and facilitating achievement of democracy in

countries that require democracy to end their civil political conflicts that create varied scales of

humanitarian crises. In this regard, it is notable that the EU’s involvement in the democracy

31

journey of Nepal was exercised in both financial and political approaches. Ghimire (2017)

added that the inception of EU’s assistance to Nepal was marked by the provision of financial

assistance to the country’s efforts towards achieving democracy.

In fact, Amardeep and Rupinder (2019) noted that the European Parliament sent election

observers to oversee the two Constituent Assembly elections held in Nepal, one on April 10,

2008, in addition to commissioning 100 observers from each of the 28 Member States of the

EU, as well as Switzerland and Norway, to oversee and observe the general elections held in

the country in 2017. These are just measures used by the EU to ensure that there is democracy

and equity in the country, after the successful ousting of the dictatorial monarchy. Lawoti

(2019) added that the EU further strengthened Nepal as a democratic republic by establishing

bilateral trade ties with it, given that it was among the major trading partners of Nepal. The

study established that the EU allowed exports of handmade carpets, gems and jewelry, textile,

wood and paper products, as well as leather products from Nepal. On the other hand, the EU

supports Nepal’s economic growth and development by exporting engineering goods,

telecommunications equipment, chemicals and minerals, metal, still, and agricultural products,

among many others.

Paudel and Pahari (2020) noted that the period between 1990 and 2015 was the most

strategic for instituting democracy in Nepal, during which the two successful People’s

Movements were conducted that introduced partial and full democracy in the country,

respectively. Throughout this period, the EU’s hand was seen, supporting and coordinating key

areas relating to governance and human rights in the country, which subsequently led to the

installation of a democratic republic in Nepal and the abolishment of the hereditary monarchy.

Nightingale et al. (2020) added that the EU’s support for democratization of Nepal was guided

by the fact that democracy would facilitate political stability, social transformation, economic

development, and most importantly, upholding of human rights in the country following its

conversion into a federal democratic and inclusive republic. Furthermore, it is also evident that

the EU did not only support Nepal to gain democracy, but also supported it to achieve economic

stability through signing of bilateral trade ties with the republic.

Khaniya and Sharma (2018) noted that apart from being the major international

supporter of the peace process and democracy in Nepal, the EU was the second biggest market

for Nepal’s exports, and principal trading partner of the country, taking up to 13% of its total

exports market share. To foster further cooperation with the Nepal, the EU formed an EU-Nepal

relations charter, whose strategic role was to explain ad implement EU policies in Nepal, to

analyze and report the economic, political, and social situations in Nepal, and to conduct key

32

negotiations as provided by its mandate. Jeffery (2017) noted that in Nepal’s context, the EU

focused on three main sectors, among them education; peace and stability; and trade facilitation

and economic capacity building. This is in addition to other additional programs conducted by

the EU in Nepal, among them protection and promotion of human rights, alleviating and

eliminating humanitarian crisis, addressing matters pertaining to food security, environmental

conservation and protection, effective management of public finance, safe migration, and

introduction of sustainable consumption and production practices.

4.1.3. Theme 3: International interests in Nepal’s Process of Democratization

The study noted that the key international figures that were interested in the

democratization of Nepal were Russia, China, the US, and the EU, with each international

organization routing for its best interests. They all have their own specific interests while

supporting its process of democratization of the country and helping best for the Nepalese

people.These interests span from geopolitical influence, to economic gain, natural resources

and trade opportunities, among many others.

a) Chinese Relations

The study established that the Nepal and Chinese relations have been cordial over the

years since the two countries signed the Sino-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship in April

28, 1960. In this regard, Jeffery (2017) noted that the Chinese were keen on maintaining a status

quo in their relationship with Nepal, and as such, tried much not to interfere with its leadership

wrangles, or even support its quest for transitioning to a democratic republic. Therefore, it was

not seen to be directly backing the public in their push for democratization from the imperial

monarchy that oppressed and persecuted its people. Over the years, there was little international

support from China to structure the political institutions and systems of Nepal in such a manner

that would guarantee political stability and growth. As such, this explains the reasons as to why

the people of Nepal had to fight for long, despite having a strong partner, before realizing their

democratization goals. Ghimire (2017) alluded that the lack of support from China for the

people’s quest for democracy was because the Chinese wanted to protect their interests in

Nepal, in that by maintaining the status quo in the political leadership of the country, China

would be able to advance its economic and territorial expansion into the Himalayan country.

This is evident from the fact that China is currently the largest source of FDI (Foreign Direct

33

Investment) in Nepal, meaning that it stood to gain significant economic benefits from the status

quo. Chacón and Paik (2017) noted that this was unlike the case of India, another major

neighboring country to Nepal, which leads in remittances to Nepal given that it provides

employment opportunities to over 1 million migrant workers from Nepal, in contrast to the

miniscule 3,500 and 15,950 Nepalese migrant workers in Mainland China and Hong Kong

respectively.

b) Russian Relations

The study noted that the Russian Federation also did little to support the democratization

progress of Nepal because of their interests in the country. Russia has always harbored the

desire to control much of Asia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and as such, it seemed

to support the monarchy leadership in the country because it was easily manipulated and

controlled by Kremlin to advance its geopolitical interests in the region. Acharya and Zafarullah

(2018) noted that Russia, just like its Chinese counterpart, was more interested in maintaining

the status quo with regard to its 60 years old relationship with Nepal. As a result, it maintained

a friendly approach to the governance of the country, seeking more to promote its national

interests as opposed to supporting revolutions and political transformations in the country. In

addition to providing Russia with a strategic base of expanding its geopolitical control across

Asia, Russia also had deep economic interests in Nepal, evidenced by the increased prevalence

of corporate institutions from the Russian Federation in Nepal. Karaman and Cernov (2017)

added that the most significant factor that motivated Kremlin to increase its influence in

Kathmandu was the massive hydro energy potential of Nepal, given the increased scarcity of

natural resources, including crude oil, coal, and natural gas. As such, the fact that Nepal is rich

in terms of water resources made it a lucrative investment partner for the Russian Federation,

which sought to maintain the status quo in Nepal so that it could benefit from these green energy

resources.

c) United States Relations

The study noted that the United States and Nepal always enjoyed friendly relations, ever

since the US established its consulate in Kathmandu in 1947, whereby its policy objectives

toward the Himalayan nation was to facilitate institutional building that would support

establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic society. Amardeep and Rupinder

34

(2019) noted that for this reason, the US provided bilateral economic assistance to Nepal to the

tune of over USD 791 million, since 1951, and an annual average of USD 40 million in

economic support in recent years, through USAID. These funds go into supporting Nepal to

improve on its health, agriculture, family planning, governance, environmental protection,

hydropower development and democratization. In this regard, Lawoti (2019) added that the US

was involved in the democratization process of Nepal by supporting its peace processes, the

preparation, and undertaking of the Constituent Assembly election. The US also provides

humanitarian assistance to Nepal for an additional USD 725 million. However, the flaw in the

US – Nepal relations was the fact that Washington used this friendly cooperation to advance its

influence in the Asian region.

d) European Union Relations

The study noted that the European Union was the most strategic international

community partner of Nepal, which has stood by the country, and supported its growth and

development over the years, including its transition from a monarchy to a democratic republic.

The diplomatic relations between the EU and Nepal were formally established in the year 1975,

but the EU established its Technical Office in Kathmandu 17 years later in 1992, which is the

same year when Nepal established a residential Embassy in Brussels. Paudel and Pahari (2020)

noted that the EU Delegation office in Kathmandu was upgraded to the ambassadorial level in

December 2009, given the long standing friendly, cordial, and cooperative relations between

EU and Nepal, based on mutual understanding, cooperation, and support in key areas of trade,

economy, development, and humanitarian issues. As a result, Nightingale et al. (2019) added

that the bilateral relations were grounded in shared values and fundamentals of peace,

democracy, stability, human rights, good governance, the rule of law and prosperity. The

frequent visits by EU parliamentarians to Nepal further strengthened the bilateral relations

between the two countries, proving the commitment of the EU to restore stability and peace in

Nepal, which had been rocked with years of civil strife because of the process of

democratization. In fact, the EU sent observers to oversee the 2008 and 2013 Constituent

Assembly elections or Nepal.

Khaniya and Sharma (2018) stated that the EU played a major role in supporting the

peace process of Nepal, which eventually resulted in the successful transition from a monarchy

to a democratic republic from April 2006. In fact, the EU was the leading player among

members of the international community that was committed to restoring stability in the country

35

and protecting human rights. It achieved this by emphasizing on building trust, guaranteeing

the respect of rule of law and human rights across all parts of the country in Nepal.Chacón and

Paik (2017) noted that the EU has also been a strong and reliable socio-economic partner of

Nepal, supporting it in economic growth and development over the years. In fact, it is currently

the largest international trade partner of Kathmandu, being the leading consumer of most of the

exports sold from Nepal. Table 2 below shows the trade relations between EU and Nepal over

the past few years

Table 4.1.3.d: Trade value between Nepal and the EU (in NRS)

Year Export Import Balance

2013 9, 371,214,058 14, 784, 649, 294 -5413435236

2014 10, 194, 408, 342 19, 460, 603, 471 -9266195129

2015 10, 074, 272, 357 25, 860, 603, 530 -15786331173

2016 10, 492, 597, 650 23, 413, 064, 925 -12920467275

(Source: Jeffery, 2017)

4.1.4. Theme 4: Benefits and challenges of democracy in Nepal to locals and the

international community

Ghimire (2017) noted that there were numerous benefits of democracy in Nepal, which

explains the continued dedication and commitment of the key patriots in the country and

politicians to battle the totalitarian kingdom in the country to introduce democratic principles

and ideologies. Key among the benefits of democracy was the equitable distribution of power

(Acharya and Zafarullah, 2018). The kingdom form of government with the king as the leader

bestowed absolute powers of state and government on the king, with a hereditary system of

transition of power from father to son. However, Karaman and Cernov (2017) noted that with

a democratic government in place, the power would be taken from the hands of one person, and

distributed to the millions of citizens in the country, who would exercise their power by voting

in their elected representatives into various political offices. For instance, after the abolishment

of the monarchy, and establishment of the Democratic Republic of Nepal, the country’s

instruments of power were divided between the President as the Head of State and the Prime

Minister as the Head of Government (Amardeep and Rupinder, 2019).

Similarly, Lawoti (2019) noted that the democratic form of government was also

beneficial because it involved the people in making decisions on how the country was to be

36

managed, including the allocation and distribution of natural resources. Furthermore, the

democratic republic also had a powerful constitution, which outlined the checks and balances

of various arms of government to prevent possible abuse of power and oppression of the people

by its leaders (Paudel and Pahari, 2020). However, the study noted that the main challenge of

democracy that Nepal faced was the absence of effective systems and structures to promote and

support democracy in the country, which has resulted in poor growth and development despite

the transition from a monarchy to a democratic republic (Nightingale et al., 2020). In this

regard, it is imperative for the government of Nepal to work with other established democracies

and the international community, including the EU, to build the right institutions, and equip and

empower them with the right capacities to facilitate long-term management democracy in

Nepal.

4.2. Discussions

The study examined the role played by the European Union in the process of

democratization of Nepal, with a particular focus on the EU’s involvement from 2000 to 2015.

The study noted that the EU was the most actively involved member of the international

community in the process of democratization of Nepal, although other countries like the United

States and China also supported the peace process and stability of Nepal, which was consistent

with Chacón and Paik (2017) findings. Nepal and the EU established bi-lateral relations

officially in 1975, when the EU identified Nepal as a poor landlocked country with poor

leadership and governance challenges that exposed its people to human rights injustices and

persecution. As a result, the EU began from an early stage to promote human rights freedoms

and privileges in the country, calling on the government to uphold and protect the constitutional

rights of its people, which was in consistent with Jeffery (2017) findings. However, the study

noted that the EU began supporting and pushing for the process of democratization in April

2006, during the Second People’s Movement in Nepal, which resulted in the successful

transition of the country from a 240 years old Hindu monarchy to a democratic republic.

The findings of the study were consistent with the findings of Ghimire (2017), who

established that the involvement of the international community in the peace process, especially

the role played by the EU, was critical in fast-tracking the achievement of democracy in Nepal.

The reason for this assertion is that the monarchy was always in opposition of any constitutional

changes in the country’s leadership, as the King wanted to remain the most powerful person on

the land, with absolute powers of state and government. In fact, excessive force was used to

37

crash any rebellion against the kingdom, which resulted in the death of over 14,000 people in

the country, throughout the period of struggling for independence, some killed by government

forces, and some killed by Maoist insurgency. These findings were consistent with the findings

of Acharya and Zafarullah (2018), who established that the then king in 2006 when the people

decided to go on a second mass movement, had been accused of governing the country

undemocratically, and oppressing and persecuting anyone who was in opposition to his rule

and leadership in the country.

Therefore, the involvement of the EU in this peach process empowered the people

against the oppressive government, which resulted in the successful ousting of the totalitarian

kin, and establishment of a democratic republic in 2008. These findings were consistent with

the findings of Karaman and Cernov (2017), who noted that the second peoples’ movement in

Nepal was the most strategic step that restored democracy in the country, though its success

was depended on the support provided by the international community, particularly the

European Union, which reigned upon the government, demanding that it upholds justice and

human rights of the people. In this regard, it is notable that the EU supported the transition of

Nepal from a monarchy to a democratic republic because it believed in democracy as the best

way to protecting and upholding human rights, especially in a country ruled by a supreme leader

with absolute powers. These findings were consistent with the findings of Amardeep and

Rupinder (2019), who stated that a democracy government empowered the people to govern

their country directly or indirectly through their elected representatives, by providing them an

opportunity to vote and select their leaders, in addition to creating an inclusive constitution that

would impose checks and balances in the arms of government to avoid abuse of power.

The study noted that the EU also supported the democratization process of Nepal by

providing structural and institutional support, which enabled the country to organize and hold

its first democratic elections after the transition in 2008, in addition to supporting other capacity

building strategies in the country to create and empower key institutions that would facilitate

the long term stability and sustainability of the country. These findings were consistent with

the findings of Lawoti (2019) who established that the EU sent its election observers to Nepal

during the 2008 and 2013 Constituent Assembly elections to ensure that there were free and

fair elections in the country, as part of the fundamental pillars of strengthening democracy in

the country. In addition, the study noted that the EU parliamentarians worked hand in hand with

the Constituent Assembly of Nepal to help prepare and promulgate the most participative and

inclusive constitutional reforms in the country, another major pillar of supporting the

democratization process. These findings were consistent with the findings of Paudel and Pahari

38

(2020) who noted that the second democratically elected Constituent Assembly managed to

successfully promulgate the new constitution of Nepal in the year 2015.

From this perspective, it is evident that the study’s findings confirmed the research aim

and objectives of the study, in addition to answering the research questions, by establishing the

strategic role played by the European Union, as a major international actor, in the process of

democratization of Nepal. The findings were consistent with the findings of Nightingale et al.

(2019) who established that the EU not only supported Nepal to change its form of governance,

but also supported the new democratic republic to build and strengthen its institutions to ensure

long term peace and stability in the country. These findings were also consistent with the

findings of Khaniya and Sharma (2018), who added that the economic cooperation between the

EU and Nepal, which consumes the largest exports from the Himalayan country, also supported

the institution and capacity building in the country. As such, it is appropriate to assert that

without the support of the EU, Nepal would have probably taken longer to restore democracy.

39

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusions

The study sought to evaluate the role played by the European Union in facilitating

Nepal’s transition from a monarchy to a democratic republic in 2008, when the democratically

elected Constituent Assembly voted to abolish the monarchy form of government that had been

used to govern the country for over two centuries (240 years). The study established that the

process of attaining democracy was long and complex, and decorated with innocent blood of

the patriots and mercenaries that actively engaged the monarchy government in fighting for

democracy in the country. According to the findings of the study, Nepal’s process of

democratization began in the 1940s, precisely in 1946, but it was realized in 2008, 62 years,

when the country officially transitioned from being a monarchy to being a democratic republic.

During these 62 years, the people of Nepal suffered under the oppressive arm of a totalitarian

government that did not condone any political activities challenging the political status quo in

the hereditary governance of the Hindu kingdom. During the research, it was revealed that

Nepal entered the peace process in 2006 after a 10-year civil war under the Comprehensive

Peace Agreement. The four-year term of promulgating the new constitution from the elected

Constituent Assembly was interrupted by the inability to draft a new constitution due to disputes

over Maoist army integration, autonomous federalism and federal rights. After the re-election

of the second Constituent Assembly, the new constitution of Nepal was finally announced in

2015 by the majority members of the elected Constituent Assembly despite the disagreement

of small groups. Nepal has not been able to develop and change as promised by the parties and

the results desired by the people due to the harsh reality that the country has to go through a

decade long transition period of constitution making, hence even today small groups Are

dissatisfied with the new constitution. However, after the transformation of Nepal into a federal

republic, the system has come out of the cycle of destiny to change the government year after

year like before. As a result of which an elected majority government has developed a practise

of leading a government for at least five consecutive years, and it is certainly establishing

Nepal's political stability in the international arena.

The findings of the study established that the European Union, through its commitment

to protect human rights, and provide humanitarian assistance to communities and vulnerable

groups across the globe, played a significant role in facilitating the bloody transition of the

country from a monarchy where the king held absolute powers over the country, to a democratic

40

republic where the government formed was for the people, where they exercised their

democratic powers through their elective representatives in federal provinces and the

Constituent Assembly. Unlike the kingdom where leadership was hereditary, passed down from

father to son, the democratic republic empowered the people of Nepal to vote in their leaders,

and put in constitutional checks and balances to avoid abuse of power, or abuse of office, with

the power to punish non-performance of elective leaders by voting them out of office.

The role played by the EU in promoting the transition of the country from a monarchy

to a democratic republic is evidenced from the financial support that the EU provided the

country, the open condemnation of human rights injustices and persecution of the innocent

public by the government, and its direct support of the democratization strategies in the country.

In fact, the EU’s hand is seen in the successful second People’s Movement of 2006 that finally

realized the country’s dream of ousting the oppressive kingdom from office, and instead

replacing it with a democratic republic that observed equity and popular representation of all

sections of the country. The EU’s role in supporting the democratization of Nepal is also seen

in its direct cooperation with the country, through the EU liaison office, whose role was to

support the people of Nepal to build strong institutions of governance, including promulgation

of a new and inclusive constitution, to strengthen the democracy achieved in the country

through sweat and blood.

According to the findings of the study, the international community has been actively involved

in Nepal using soft Power like Democracy Building and Empowering Marginalized Groups.

China and India, rising regional and global powers want to obtain spheres of influence in Nepal.

For America and Europe, Nepal would be one of the most potent advantages in the geopolitical

competition with China for influence and control in Asia. The EU does not seem to have broad

strategic interests in Nepal mostly engaged in human rights assistance. It has been supporting

civil rights, liberty and democratic movements since 2001. Not having a major strategic interest

in Nepal, however EU usually follow the US line on Nepal case. As Eu's expending ambition

as global actorness in the international arena on 21st century to promote democracy around the

world EU global actorness is not only limit in the political and economic cooperation but also

promote European value, social welfare, freedom and most importantly democracy and human

rights. In this overall process of drafting a new constitution, the European Union has been

involved in various ways at different times as Diplomatic relations, diplomatic pressure,

financial assists. Alongside EU played a lead role in bringing the international donor

community back to the economic development of Nepal, maintaining interest on soft projects.

41

The fact that the EU is currently the largest economic partner of Nepal also indicates its strategic

role in promoting the course of democratization in the country. Nepal was a poor landlocked

country with a kingdom that exploited public resources at the expense of the people, forced to

wallow in poverty as the royals swam in riches and fame. The EU supported the country to

introduce equitable redistribution of wealth in the country through promotion of trade, and

opening its markets to Nepal’s exports, as a means of strengthening and supporting the country

to form a stable democratic republic that would stand the test of time. Presently, the EU is the

largest consumer of export products from Nepal. Trade and economic relations with the EU and

Nepal are not just relations between the two countries. Nepal has its own unique relationship

and history with various other EU member states within the EU. There is a need for separate

research on the overall EU-Nepal economic aid and trade relations. The issue of bilateral

strategic relations and political relations is the subject of further research. These two researches

are not enough about the relations between Nepal and the EU and its member countries. Further

coherent research on bilateral relations with other major European Union members as Germany

and France, is essential. So far there are few more research documents available about the UK-

Nepal relationship, there has been not much documentation, study and writing with other

countries so there was a lot of difficulty in data collection during this research. Not all the data

and information available from academic research is up to date. Although the relationship

between Europe and Nepal has been established for a long time, it does not seem to be moving

in the way it should have. The reason behind this is that the autocratic monarchy has existed

for a long time because they seem to have used these relations for personal gain rather than for

the development bilateral growth and transformation of the people. However tripling the EU's

assistance to Nepal since the end of the monarchy, after King Gyanendra's royal coup in

February 2005 pressure to the king to restore democracy, the EU and its member countries to

suspend many development projects are crucial role played by the European Union in the

process of democratization of Nepal. A look at The Economic Intelligence Unit's Democracy

Index 2020 data on the past and present state of democracy in Nepal shows that Nepal now

ranks 92nd in the global rankings with a score of 5.28 under the hybrid regime. in 2006 Under

the authoritarian regime, Nepal was ranked 126th with a score of 3.42.10

It seems that Nepal currently under the hybrid regime will have to go through a long process to

reach the height of the full democracy regime. For that, the international community, especially

10 https://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

42

the European Union, which is leading in the promotion of global democracy, needs the full

support and guide to Nepal. The fact that after the new constitution promulgation the

international community and donor agencies are willing to invest and cooperate in Nepal shows

that the establishment of democracy in Nepal is moving in a positive direction.

5.2. Key Findings based on Research Objectives

5.2.1. Research Objective 1

The study confirmed the first research objective by establishing that the European Union

(EU) played a strategic role in supporting the democratization of Nepal, by providing financial

support, economic support, and international support for the public in their quest for democracy

from the oppressive monarch. Without international support, it might have been difficult for

the public to oust the monarchy government since it had all instruments of power, and the king

held absolute powers.

5.2.2. Research Objective 2

The study confirmed the second research objective by establishing that the country

faced a lot of challenges when pursuing the process of democratization, including oppression

of the public, and persecution of the political activists leading the efforts to establishing a

democracy in the country. Key among these include the loss of over 14,000 innocent lives,

including civilians, militants, and the military, who died during the armed combat launched by

the people to fight for democracy in the country.

5.2.3. Research Objective 3

The study confirmed the third research objective by establishing that operating as a

democratic republic had a wide range of benefits for Nepal, as opposed to being governed by a

hereditary monarchy where the king had absolute powers over the country. With the democratic

republic in place, the constitution empowered the people to exercise their rights and privileges

in governing the country indirectly through their elected representatives in the Constituent

Assembly, which was in charge of making laws and policies in the country. This is unlike the

43

previous case of the monarchy leadership where the king’s decree was used to make laws and

policies of the land.

5.2.4. Research Objective 4

The study confirmed the fourth research objective by establishing that unlike other

international organizations and communities present in Nepal at the time, the European Union

did not have hidden interests in supporting the country transition from a monarchy to a

democratic republic.

5.3. Recommendations

The findings of the study established that the EU played a strategic role in promoting

the democratization of Nepal, more so, without having any hidden interests where it would

stand to benefit from the changes in governance style in the country. In this regard, it is

recommended that democratic republic of Nepal strengthen its bilateral relations with the EU,

both politically and economically, given that wanted the best for the people of Nepal. This is

considering the fact that even with a democratic republic in place, the country is yet to overcome

majority of the socio-economic challenges that its people faced during the monarchy rule. For

this reason, they need continuous support from a concerned international body, which is

committed to supporting and guiding it through the ropes of democracy and development,

eventually making it the model country that all its citizens desired from the very beginning.

5.4. Future Studies

The most appropriate study areas to pursue based on the current findings of the research

include ‘Evaluating the economic contribution of the European Union to the Democratic

Republic of Nepal’, or ‘Evaluating the structural and institutional support provided by the

European Union to the Democratic Republic of Nepal since it abolished the monarchy system

of governance’.

44

References

Acharya, K., and Zafarullah, 2018. Community governance and service delivery in Nepal: an

assessment of influencing factors. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance.

Amardeep, Mr, and Mr Rupinder Singh. 2019. Nepal’s Experiments with Constitutional Monarchy:

Journey from Kingdom to Party Panchayat (1768-1990). Research Journal of Social

Sciences,10(6)

Antonson, Carl, et al. 2019. Democracy, dictatorship, and adolescent self-esteem: a cross-sectional

comparison across the iron curtain. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,

9(2): 45-61.

Bhargava, Kant K. and Reed, Ananya, Mukherjee. 2019.Prospects for democratic development in

South Asia and the European Union’s role in democracy Building, Stockholm: International

IDEA.

Bhatta, Ganesh Datta. 2019. Legitimate bases of the Constitution of Nepal and prospects of

strengthening democracy. Journal of Communication, 1(1).

Bhusal, Thanesh. 2016. Democracy without elections: 15 years of local democratic deficit in Nepal.

South Asia@ LSE.

Bjørnskov, Christian. 2019) Why do military dictatorships become presidential democracies? Mapping

the democratic interests of autocratic regimes. Public Choice: 1-23.

Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. 2004. One size fits all! EU policies for the promotion of human rights,

democracy and the rule of law. In Workshop on Democracy Promotion (Vol. 4, pp. 509-523).

Breen, Michael G. 2018. Nepal, federalism and participatory constitution-making: deliberative

democracy and divided societies. Asian Journal of Political Science,26(3): 410-430.

Breen, Michael G. 2018. The Road to Federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Finding the

Middle Ground. Routledge, 2018.

Brennen, Bonnie S. 2017. Qualitative research methods for media studies. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Calingaert, D., Puddington, A., & Repucci, S. 2014. the democracy support deficit: despite progress,

major countries fall short. Supporting Democracy Abroad: An Assessment of Leading Powers.

Chacón, Mario, and Christopher Paik. 2017. Ballots and bullets: the electoral origin of the maoist

insurgency in Nepal. Available at SSRN 2995007.

Chand, B. 2019. Sino-Indian relations and EU development policies in post-conflict Nepal. In EU

Development Policies (pp. 95-110). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Chaturvedy, Rajeev Ranjan. 2017. Democracy in Nepal: issues and challenges.

45

Chetri, Than Bahadur. 2018) Federal Democratic Republic Nepal: deepening problems and prospects.

Journal of Political Science, 18: 114-142.

Dahal, Girdhari. 2017. Constitution of Nepal and political development: adaption and challenges of

implication. Janapriya Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 6: 148-159.

Dahal, Girdhari. 2017. Democratic Practice and Good Governance In Nepal. Journal of Political

Science, 17: 18-35.

Dahal, Sudarshan Prasad. 2019. Media autonomy in cross-road in post-conflict democracy of Nepal.

Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7: 35-66.

Dalton, R. J, Shin, D. C, & Jou, W. (2007). Popular Conceptions of the Meaning of Democracy:

Democratic Understanding in Unlikely Places. UC Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy.

Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2j74b860

Diamond, Larry, 2011. Democracy’s third wave today. Current History, November

European Commission. 2001. Communication from the Commission, Europe and Asia: A Strategic

Framework for Enhanced Partnership, COM (2001) 469 final, Brussels, 4 September 2001

Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History. New York: The Free Press.

Gellner, D., & Hachhethu, K. Eds.. 2008. Local democracy in South Asia: microprocesses of

democratization in Nepal and its neighbours (Vol. 1). SAGE Publications India.

Ghimire, Safal. 2017. Optimised or compromised? United Kingdom support to reforming security

sector governance in post-war Nepal. Third World Quarterly, 38(6): 1415-1436.

Gordon, S. 2005. Evaluating Nepal's integrated security and development policy: development,

democracy, and counterinsurgency. Asian Survey, 45(4): pp. 581-602.

Gunatilleke, Godfrey. 2009. The SAARC Social Charter and the strengthening of Democracy.

Stockholm: International IDEA, 2009, www.idea.int/eu

Gurung, Shanti. 2018. The challenges to democracy in Nepal. (2018).

Hachhethu, Krishna. 2009. Role of European Union and Democracy Building in Nepal. Stockholm:

International IDEA, 2009, www.idea.int/eu

Hatlebakk, Magnus. 2017. Nepal: A political economy analysis. Report.

Hennink, Monique, Inge Hutter, and Ajay Bailey. 2020. Qualitative research methods. SAGE

Publications Limited, 2020.

Howitt, Dennis. 2016. Introduction to qualitative research methods in psychology. Pearson UK, 2016.

Hutt, Michael J., and Pratyoush Raj Onta, eds. 2017. Political change and public culture in post-1990

Nepal. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Hyder, Mustafa, and Syed Shahid Zaheer Zaidi. 2019. Role of dictatorship in the good governance of

Pakistan.

46

International IDEA (2009. Summary of Proceedings: Consultations on the EU’s role in democracy

building in South Asia, Stockholm/Kathmandu: International IDEA, 2 March 2009, available

at www.idea.int/eu

International IDEA. 2009. Nepal in Transition: A Study on the State of Democracy (Stockholm:

International IDEA, 2009)

Ishiyama, John. 2019. Is Democracy Necessary for Good Governance? Social Science Quarterly,

100(6): 2188-2208.

Jain, Rajendra K. 2009. The European Union and Democracy Building in South Asia, Stockholm:

International IDEA, 2009, www.idea.int/eu

Jeffery, Renée. 2017) Nepal's comprehensive peace agreement: human rights, compliance and

impunity a decade on. International Affairs, 93(2): 343-364.

Karaman, Semanur, and Ana Cernov. 2017. Reclaiming Democratic Spaces Through Liberatory

Imagination. Development, 60(1-2): 22-31.

Khadka, Dikendra, et al. 2017. Role and responsibility of indigenous, marginalized and disadvantaged

people on succession of different people movement in Nepal. Int. J. Arts, Humanit. Manag.

Stud, 3(10).

Khaniya, Bharat, and Arun Kumar Sharma. 2018. Election and Development in Federal Nepal:

Perspective of APF in Election Security. Journal of APF Command and Staff College, 1(1): 37-

43.

Khatri, S. K. 2009. The European Union’s Support for Democracy Building in South Asia: an

Overview’. Democracy in Development: Global Consultations on the EU’s Role in Democracy

Building.

Kugiel, P. 2012. The European Union and India: Partners in Democracy Promotion? PISM Policy

Paper, 25.

Lawoti, 2019. Nepal in 2019: Stable Government but Growing Dissatisfaction. Asian Survey,60(1):

196-203

Lune, Howard, and Bruce L. Berg, 2016. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson

Higher Ed, 2016.

Malla, Ashesh (2019. The Pro-Democracy Movement. The Theatre of Nepal and the People Who Make

It: Urban History, Rural Forms: 49.

Mottin, Monica (2017. Protests, Space and Creativity: Theatre as a Site for the Affective Construction

of Democracy in Nepal. Political Change and Public Culture in Post-1990 Nepal: 170.

Musacchio, Lorenzo (2019. Framing the democracy discourse: a post-structural analysis of india’s

intervention in Nepal’s protracted democratization.

47

Nayak, N. 2008. Involvement of major powers in Nepal since the 1990s: implications for India.

Strategic Analysis, 33(1): 41-53.

Nightingale, A. J., Lenaerts, L., Shrestha, A., Lama ‘Tsumpa’, P. N., & Ojha, H. R. 2019. The Material

Politics of Citizenship: Struggles over Resources, Authority and Belonging in the New Federal

Republic of Nepal. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(5): 886-902.

Nihar Nayak (2008) Involvement of Major Powers in Nepal since the 1990s: Implications for India,

Strategic Analysis, 33: pp. 41-53.

Opello Jr, Walter, C (2019. Portugal: From Monarchy to Pluralist Democracy. Routledge, 2019.

Paudel, N. R., & Pahari, S. 2020. Local election in Nepal means for ensuring electoral accountability.

Journal of APF Command and Staff College,3(1): 35-48.

Prasai, Khagendra. 2018. Role of youth in strengthening parliamentary federal democracy in Nepal.

Molung Educational Frontier, 8: 49-60.

Przeworski, Adam. 2017. A conceptual history of political regimes: Democracy, dictatorship, and

authoritarianism. Studia Socjologiczno-Polityczne. Seria Nowa 7.2 (2017): 9-30.

Regmi, Dan Raj. 2017. Convalescing the endangered languages in Nepal: Policy, practice and

challenges: 139-149

Rolfes, Louis, and Kathrin Passig. 2019. The Proto-Governance of Minecraft Servers. Journal For

Virtual Worlds Research, 12(3).

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Democracy as a universal value, Journal of Democracy 10/3: 3-17.

Snellinger, Amanda. 2017. ‘Pure democracy’in ‘new Nepal’: conceptions, practices, and anxieties.

Democratisation in the Himalayas. Routledge India, 2017. 147-170.

Solanki, Milind Kantilal, and Pratap B. Ratad. 2019. Buddhism, Democracy and Dr. Ambedkar: The

Building of Indian National Identity. International Journal of English Literature and Social

Sciences (IJELS) 4(4).

Sonja Grimm and Okka Lou Mathis. 2019. Democratization via aid? The European Union’s democracy

promotion in the Western Balkans 1994–2010, European Union Politics pp. 163 – 184

Teorell, Jan, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2019. Beyond democracy-dictatorship measures: a new

framework capturing executive bases of power, 1789–2016. Perspectives on Politics 17:66-84.

Tracy, S. J. 2019. Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating

impact. John Wiley & Sons.

Tracy, Sarah J. 2019. Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,

communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Ullah Khan, M. 2012. Is the EU a global'force for good'? Four case studies in South Asia (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Geneva).

48

Upreti, B. R. 2009. 11 External engagement in Nepal’s armed conflict. The Maoist insurgency in

Nepal: Revolution in the twenty-first century,20, p. 219.

Whelpton, J. (2005). A History of Nepal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050860

Wintrobe, Ronald (2018. Are There Types of Dictatorship? The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice,

2, p. 286.

49

Appendix

Appendix 1: Literature Review Matrix

Citation Subject Findings Publisher Application to

study

Chacón and Paik

(2017)

Ballots and

Bullets: The

Electoral Origin

of the Maoist

Insurgency in

Nepal

The Maoist insurgency

emerged because of

electoral malpractices

in forming the

Constituent Assembly

Available

at SSRN

2995007

(2017)

Presents an

overview of the

struggle that Nepal

went through in its

process of

democratization

Jeffery (2017) Nepal's

comprehensive

peace

agreement:

human rights,

compliance and

impunity a

decade on

The new democratic

government of Nepal

signed a

comprehensive peace

agreement with the

Maoist leaders

Internation

al Affairs

93.2

(2017):

343-364

Outlines the

contents of the

peace agreement

signed between the

democratic

government and

the Maoist

insurgency

Ghimire (2017) Optimised or

compromised?

United

Kingdom

support to

reforming

security sector

governance in

post-war Nepal

The UK was a major

international

community member

concerned with the

stability of Nepal

Third

World

Quarterly

38.6

(2017):

1415-1436

Establishes the

interests of the UK

in the democracy

of Nepal

Acharya and

Zafarullah

(2018)

Community

governance and

service delivery

in Nepal: an

assessment of

influencing

factors

Community

governance in Nepal is

still weak, given the

factors in place are not

effective

Commonw

ealth

Journal of

Local

Governanc

e (2018)

Evaluates the

nature and style of

governance in

Nepal, given the

current democratic

composition

Karaman and

Cernov (2017)

Reclaiming

Democratic

Spaces Through

Liberatory

Imagination

Even with democracy

in place, some

Nepalese citizens feel

they are still oppressed

by the government

Developme

nt 60.1-2

(2017): 22-

31

Outlines the

shortcomings of

democracy in

Nepal that are

related to the

monarchy rule

Amardeep and

Rupinder (2019)

Nepal’s

Experiments

with

Constitutional

Monarchy:

Journey from

Kingdom to

Party Panchayat

(1768-1990).

Evaluated the

constitutional

monarchy in Nepal,

and how it affected its

process of

democratization

Research

journal of

social

sciences

10.6

(2019).

Provided the pros

and cons of the

constitutional

monarchy of Nepal

that ruled for over

200 years

50

Lawoti (2019) Nepal in 2019:

Stable

Government but

Growing

Dissatisfaction

Even though there is a

stable democratically

elected government,

there is growing

dissatisfaction across

the country among its

people

Asian

Survey,

2020,

60(1), 196-

203

Hints on the high

dissatisfaction

levels of the

people of their

government,

irrespective of its

democratic

constitution

Paudel and

Pahari (2020)

Local Election

in Nepal: Means

for Ensuring

Electoral

Accountability

Nepal has put in place

strong mechanisms to

ensure electoral

fairness and

accountability

Journal of

APF

Command

and Staff

College,

2020, 3(1),

35-48

Addresses claims

of electoral

malpractices in

Nepal

Nightingale et al.

(2020)

The Material

Politics of

Citizenship:

Struggles over

Resources,

Authority and

Belonging in the

New Federal

Republic of

Nepal

There is an internal

struggle in Nepal for

control of resources,

and authority, given

the influence of the

international

community on Nepal

South Asia:

Journal of

South

Asian

Studies,

2020,

42(5), 886-

902

Provides a preview

of the nature of

politics being

practiced in Nepal,

and its impact on

the people’s lives

and well-being

Khaniya and

Sharma (2018)

Election and

Development in

Federal Nepal:

Perspective of

APF in Election

Security

Evaluates EU’s

involvement in

democracy building in

the Asian country

Journal of

APF

Command

and Staff

College 1.1

(2018): 37-

43.

Provides and

understanding of

the development of

the electoral

system in Nepal

after democracy